9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and as such there is no requirement for the appellant to provide canteen service to the workers in terms of the provisions of the Factories Act. The appellant's plea is that providing canteen facility is necessary for improving the efficiency of their workers. The department however, did not accept this plea and disallowed the Cenvat credit in respect of the outdoor catering service and the jurisdictional Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 22.02.2010 confirmed the Cenvat credit demand of Rs. 5,21,838 along with interest for 2004-2005 . April,. 2009 period under Rule 14 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and imposed penalty of equal amount on the appellant under the provisions of Rule 15 ibid. On appeal to the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rest and penalty may be waived for hearing the appeal and recovery thereof be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. 4. Shri R.K. Verma, ld. Departmental Representative opposed the stay application and reiterating the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order and pointing out the findings of the adjudicating authority in para 15 of the order-in-original, he pleaded that from the adjudicating authority's findings in this para it is clear that the cost of providing canteen facility to the workers has been recovered from them, as is evident from the salary slips of the workers and, therefore, even on the basis of the judgment of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in GTC Industries Ltd.'s case (supra) and the judgment of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is activity is a welfare activity, in which case, it would not be eligible for Cenvat credit or this activity is essential for increasing the productivity of the workers which would depend on the location of the factory, the number of shifts in which it works etc. these aspects can be considered only at the time of final hearing. 5.1 As regards limitation, though, the appellant pleads that the bulk of the demand is time-barred, question of limitation being a mixed question of fact and the same can be examined only at the time of final hearing. 6. In view of the above discussion, this is not a fit case for total waiver. The appellant therefore, directed to deposit 50 per cent of the Cenvat credit demand within a period of four weeks from t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
